Can you find all the Nazi buzzwords in Vox Day’s recent denunciation of Jewish humor?

Here’s a fun little challenge! See how many antisemitic buzzwords used by the literal Nazis you can find in this denunciation of Jewish humor from our old pal, racist, woman-hating fantasy author Theodore “Vox Day” Beale!

What passes for Jewish so-called humor isn’t funny at all. I’ve never found Mel Brooks, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Sarah Silverman, Adam Sandler, Gene Wilder, or Lenny Bruce to be even modestly amusing. Jewish “humor” is nothing more than a degenerate combination of whining, moral and cultural transgressivism, narcissistic posturing, and sexual obsession. It’s so relentlessly stupid that it is borderline retarded. …

The reason that comedy is dying is because it was taken over by subversives, and subversives are intrinsically parasitical in nature. They can’t build, create, or even sustain anything on their own. It’s like trying to maintain the financial sector on the basis of nothing except finance.

I found “degenerate,” “parasitical” and “finance.” Did I miss any? How many did you find?

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Comments

Seriously, though, no fan of Sandler, but at least the man-child who gets the girl and the money inevitably turns out to be only *superficially* a jerk, and underneath it a decent person.

They’re not really decent people underneath, though. We’re supposed to think that and most dudes probably agree with that statement, but women who have had relationships with these kinds of jackasses can tell you that the way they treat women reflects who they truly are, and if you pay attention to how they treat the women in those films, it’s pretty fucking awful.

Kupo – I 100% agree that’s usually the situation in real life. The point is that it’s different in Sandler’s *movies*.

To put it in one sentence: in his movies, the jerk doesn’t get the girl because he is a jerk. He gets the girl because, despite appearances, he *isn’t really* a jerk and she comes to realize it.

Realistic? Of course not. But hardly supporting bring a jerk to women. It’s a classic boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-regains-girl plot. Being a jerk is why he *loses* her, not why he regains her. Unfortunately Sandler seems incapable of thinking of any *other* reason to lose a girl *except* being a jerk…

@Anonymous
None of that changes the fact that, through their actions and words in his movies, Adam Sandler’s characters are not, in fact, good guys. His movies do actually support being a jerk to women because, even when portrayed as good people, his characters treat women like shit. It’s just done in subtle, generally socially acceptable ways.

Imagine the hero in his movies starting out as a gentleman. What will happen then? His love interest will instantly realize it and become his girlfriend… But that will be the end of the movie in 5 minutes!

Him being a jerk is necessary *for the plot*, not to get girls. Every movie needs a problem to overcome, and him looking like a jerk is the problem for both.

If he didn’t seem a jerk he would get the girl much *faster*, and he doesn’t get the girl until she’s convinced he *isn’t* (really) a jerk. This is no support of being a jerk as a method to get girls. The exact opposite, in fact.

I 100% agree “date jerks, they might turn out to be good guys deep down” is terrible dating advice, but who ever watches an Adam Sandler movie for *that*? “Date a girl whose family can’t stand yours, she might be a Juliet” or “get bitten by spiders, they might give you superpowers” are hardly good real-life advice, either.

But the whole “this guy seems like a jerk, but he’s a good guy underneath” narrative serves to keep women accepting jerkish behavior from men in the hopes that if we’re patient and caring enough, the good guy will come out.

So, I’d argue that being a jerk is not necessary for the plot. It’s a lazy, easy, and overutilized trope that just happens to usually work.

Non romance movies of course have other ways to move plots, but since we seem to be talking strictly romance:

Other methods to generate plot/provide a character growth arc that isn’t the “jerk learns to not jerk” include—

(1) Person super focused on non-romantic things in life finally realizes they might actually have desires, but has difficulty creating work-life balance. Love interest has same problem. Mutual pining ensues.

(2) Childhood friends have some cruddy dating experiences. Do marriage pact jokingly. Have more cruddy dating experiences. Realize cruddy dating experiences might be because (while dates are nice, just no sparks) they’re totally hung up on their joke pact friend. Plot centers around couple actually learning to recognize their own emotions, instead of what they THINK they should be into.

(3) Person A and Person B meet at activity, end up meeting frequently and have decent interactions. Person A does polite and nice flirting, but Person B is politely oblivious because of InsecurityTM. Over Plot, Person B learns that InsecurityTM doesn’t mean they are actually unlovable and starts to recognize Person A’s advances. Person A figures out more direct, while still appropriate, ways to indicate that they are indeed interested.

There’s a near infinite amount of other possibilities.

Not all drama/romance has to be the same freaking movie over and over again! Jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold can be done well, but is frequently done poorly and is pretty much done to death.

>>>>>So, I’d argue that being a jerk is not necessary for the plot. It’s a lazy, easy, and overutilized trope that just happens to usually work.

Oh, 100% agree. I didn’t mean it is necessary for *any* romantic plot (Romeo and Juliet or Casablanca managed without), but merely for Sandler’s lazy, mediocre plots. He is guilty many artistic crimes, but not of supporting being a jerk as *good*.

As antisemitic tropes go, I’d say “incapable of creativity” might be one. Bizarrely, but there you go.

The journey to get there seems to require assuming that every example of Jewish artistic, scientific or social creativity is either degeneracy, a fiendish plot, plagiarised without credit from honest striving gentiles, a cunningly cultivated mass illusion – or all the above.

But the whole “this guy seems like a jerk, but he’s a good guy underneath” narrative serves to keep women accepting jerkish behavior from men in the hopes that if we’re patient and caring enough, the good guy will come out.

I don’t know if I agree that Sandler’s movies play into the idea that “women dig jerks,” or whatever. Happy Gilmore aside, Sandler’s characters are usually less stereotypical assholes than immature, selfish or otherwise socially inept man-children who through some fantastical series of events manage come out on top. (And in the process, of course, end up with a very attractive girlfriend.)

So one might then argue that Sandler’s movies play into the (related) trope of an undesirable slacker guy paired with a beautiful and accomplished woman. Even there, though, I think Sandler’s movies – perhaps surprisingly – tend to avoid the stereotype of the gorgeous woman who inexplicably falls for a complete loser. For the most part, Sandler’s love interests aren’t attracted to the oaf: they usually only show real interest once he’s cleaned up his act. (Billy Madison is possibly a sort-of exception here, but even then, the teacher doesn’t start to like him until he starts making a real effort in his classes. You could also point to The Waterboy, but Sandler’s character in The Waterboy, ridiculous as he is, is earnest and hardworking.)

In my opinion, then, the damaging message of the ’90s Sandler films isn’t that women will or should “put up” with assholes or losers, because for the most part Sandler’s women don’t. Rather, it’s the implication that a girlfriend is some kind of inevitable reward that a man can expect (or feel entitled to) once they get a nice job, improve their social skills, become a “nice guy,” or otherwise get their life in order. Getting one’s life in order is a very good thing, of course. But the idea that getting a girlfriend is some kind of achievement to be unlocked is a toxic mindset for all sorts of reasons.

I find it a bit troubling that “earnest and hardworking” is being put forth above as superior to being “a slacker”.

Perhaps under normal circumstances, where “earnest and hardworking” contributed usefully to one’s community and was in turn rewarded, that would be true; but under neoliberal capitalism, “earnest and hardworking” contributes to lining the pockets of the super-wealthy oligarchs who need more money the least, and is “rewarded” with long hours, abuse, insufficient pay to live even a basic decent-but-frugal life on without supplementation, and the continued hollowing out of one’s “community”, if I may use that term loosely, by the corporate leeches.

Under these circumstances, if you can get away with being a “slacker” that might be better off viewed as an act of resistance rather than a failure to pull one’s weight. Until the revolution, or whatever, of course.

P.S. Why does “notify me of new posts by email” keep checking itself now? I haven’t changed anything since yesterday, when that was not happening.

Honestly, Teddy Beale feels like too low hanging a fruit these days. Day in day out, he says horrible things for attention and trying to pick him apart is like trying to find a coherent argument in schoolyard insults.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here